Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Show Parachutes Don't Work, But There's A Catch (npr.org)
Reader Beeftopia shares a report: Research published in a major medical journal concludes that a parachute is no more effective than an empty backpack at protecting you from harm if you have to jump from an aircraft. But before you leap to any rash conclusions, you had better hear the whole story. The gold standard for medical research is a study that randomly assigns volunteers to try an intervention or to go without one and be part of a control group. For some reason, nobody has ever done a randomized controlled trial of parachutes. In fact, medical researchers often use the parachute example when they argue they don't need to do a study because they're so sure they already know something works. Cardiologist Robert Yeh, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and attending physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, got a wicked idea one day. He and his colleagues would actually attempt the parachute study to make a few choice points about the potential pitfalls of research shortcuts.
They started by talking to their seatmates on airliners. [...] In all, 23 people agreed to be randomly given either a backpack or a parachute and then to jump from a biplane on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts or from a helicopter in Michigan. Relying on two locations and only two kinds of aircraft gave the researchers quite a skewed sample. But this sort of problem crops up frequently in studies, which was part of the point Yeh and his team were trying to make. Still, photos taken during the experiment show the volunteers were only too happy to take part. The drop in the study was about 2 feet total, because the biplane and helicopter were parked. Nobody suffered any injuries. Surprise, surprise. So it's technically true that parachutes offered no better protection for these jumpers than the backpacks.
They started by talking to their seatmates on airliners. [...] In all, 23 people agreed to be randomly given either a backpack or a parachute and then to jump from a biplane on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts or from a helicopter in Michigan. Relying on two locations and only two kinds of aircraft gave the researchers quite a skewed sample. But this sort of problem crops up frequently in studies, which was part of the point Yeh and his team were trying to make. Still, photos taken during the experiment show the volunteers were only too happy to take part. The drop in the study was about 2 feet total, because the biplane and helicopter were parked. Nobody suffered any injuries. Surprise, surprise. So it's technically true that parachutes offered no better protection for these jumpers than the backpacks.
It's making a point about medical researchers making assumptions and/or cherry picking situations/test candidates that will skew results towards a preferred/anticipated outcome. The Christmas issue of BMJ is intentionally lighthearted, something that probably should have been made clearer in TFS to avoid the amount of "WHOOSH!" that's going on.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Not if it reminds people how they are constantly lied to via fancy language and assumption manipulation...
BLS numbers on the economy? Every politician ever? Parse them carefully and many take this to high art - not actually lying but saying things in a way that you thought you heard what you wanted to hear. All marketing? Man, I tried all that aftershave, toothpaste, hair gel and treament, still didn't "get the girl"...(you're supposed to know that's a joke).
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
This was done as an example to the medical community on problems with research studies and results. A teaching moment rather than an actual study with practical outcomes.
This wasn't a serious study, it is actually an extension of an old joke.
https://www.bmj.com/content/32...
They are mocking people who demand double blind tests of everything and dismiss anything that isn't tested that way. Since double blind trials are impossible for many things in medicine, especially psychology and sociology, some people think they are bunk yet probably wouldn't hold parachutes to the same rigorous standard.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
120...ish. I fall closer to 130. I might be able to slow down to 120, but it takes some work on my part. The fastest speed on my digital altimeter is 205 mph, attained in a very steep dive at 9000 feet. I leveled into a track shortly after that, since opening a parachute at 205 mph would kill me just about as fast as not opening a parachute at 205 mph. Some of the kids I've seen flying in the wind tunnel fall at 70-80 mph. If you weigh less than 90 pounds and know how to fall slowly, I reckon you might be able to survive a terminal velocity fall if you land on the right surface. If you can find a surface that doesn't shatter some bones in the process, that'd actually be a fun party trick.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?